Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bharath Rupireddy
Subject Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code
Date
Msg-id CALj2ACWGB9oHCR5ygkc8u6_QDqecObf9j2MxtOgsjZMMKsLj=Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: parallel vacuum - few questions on docs, comments and code
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 7:00 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yeah, I get it. Even if users don't specify a parallel option there
> > > are chances that parallelism is picked. So the parallel degree is the
> > > final number of workers that are chosen by the server for vacuuming
> > > indexes. And, I think that parallel degree is something internal to
> > > the server, and it's better we replace it in the vacuumdb.sgml, change
> > > PARALLEL_DEGREE to PARALLEL_WORKERS in vacuumdb.c and change the error
> > > message "parallel vacuum degree must be a non-negative integer" to
> > > "parallel workers for vacuum must be greater than or equal to zero".
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
>
> I'm fine with this change.

Thanks.

> is important here but another idea to improve the error message would
> be to change "parallel vacuum degree must be between 0 and %d” to "the
> number of parallel workers must be between 0 and %d” (or using
> “parallel workers for vacuum” instead of “the number of parallel
> workers”) while leaving another message as it is.

Done that way.

PSA patch.

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: OOM in spgist insert
Next
From: Maciek Sakrejda
Date:
Subject: Re: compute_query_id and pg_stat_statements